Chandler, Arizona

Chandler announced it will discontinue its 40 fixed Flock Safety license plate readers and will not renew its service agreement, after a routine audit identified what the police chief described as potential misuse of the system by someone inside the department.

What happened

Chandler ran a Flock Safety license plate reader program from March 2024, when the police department launched a 14-camera pilot. In May 2025 the City Council approved 26 additional cameras, bringing the total to 40.

A renewal vote was scheduled for May 21, 2026. Facing organized public opposition, the Council postponed it to July 16, then again to August 13. On August 7 — six days before that third scheduled vote — the city announced it would discontinue the program entirely.

The stated trigger was internal. For the first time in three years, the city said, its routine audit process “identified an anomaly in the use of the Flock system that could not be explained through standard police action.” Police Chief Bryan Chapman said the department had identified “a potential misuse of the system by somebody in our organization.” Access was restricted for all department personnel immediately — roughly 200 of about 560 staff had it — and an internal investigation was opened.

Why this decision matters beyond Chandler

The audit worked, and that is the argument. Chandler did not discover misuse because an officer confessed or a victim complained. It found it because somebody ran a routine audit and looked at the output. That is a repeatable procedure any city can adopt, and Chandler is now the proof that it catches things.

The search-volume disparity is the clearest statement of the local-control problem we have seen documented. An ABC15 investigation reported that in January 2026, Chandler PD ran roughly 454 searches across about 70 investigations — while outside agencies ran nearly 40,000 searches of Chandler’s data in that same month. That is roughly 88 external searches for every internal one. A city can write whatever policy it likes; once the data is shared outward, the overwhelming majority of use is by people the city does not oversee.

The mechanism matters for anyone planning a campaign. No council vote ever happened. Declining to renew an expiring agreement was an administrative act. Campaigns organized entirely around winning a vote should note that the vote is not always where the decision gets made — and that a postponed vote is not a loss.

The department’s case, stated fairly

Chandler PD defended the system throughout and continued to defend it after the shutdown. Chief Chapman said in May 2026: “I can point conservatively to over 2,000 positive applications of ALPR technology here in Chandler,” citing the apprehension of fleeing home-invasion suspects, the location of a wanted robbery suspect, and the location of missing dementia patients. Department figures reported in local coverage included roughly 7,600 alerts in the last fiscal year and, for July 2025 through April 2026, 16 stolen vehicles recovered, 9 missing persons located, and 39 arrests.

On announcing the shutdown, Chapman said the decision “slows down our investigative capacities.”

These figures come from department presentations reported in local media. They have not been independently audited, and we have not obtained the underlying case data. We cite them because they are the department’s honest position and the public deserves to weigh them — not because we have verified them.

What happened afterwards

Cameras were deactivated and department access revoked immediately; the hardware remains Flock's property and physical removal was still pending as of August 11, 2026. Because declining to renew an expiring agreement was handled administratively, the City Council vote scheduled for August 13 became moot. Chandler is the largest Arizona city to end a Flock partnership. Local organizers have since begun pushing for a permanent ordinance to prevent the city from resuming the same surveillance under a different vendor.

What we still don’t know

These are the records we would need to describe this decision completely. If you can help obtain them, or already have them, get in touch.

The Flock service agreement, the March 2024 pilot authorization, and the May 2025 expansion staff report, to verify cost and term
The written Chandler PD ALPR policy, including retention, audit procedure, and audit configuration
The audit record and internal affairs file on the flagged anomaly — what the misuse was, and the outcome
The full list of outside agencies that searched Chandler data, with stated search reasons, for the life of the program
Written confirmation of the deactivation date and the physical removal date for each of the 40 units
Whether any Chandler data already transferred to partner agencies survives the shutdown, and under what retention rule
Whether the city intends to procure a replacement vendor